Template:Did you know nominations/Central Jamaat-e Ahl-e Sunnat

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Central Jamaat-e Ahl-e Sunnat

(

)

... that the imam of Norway's largest mosque has spoken at rallies in support of a self-confessed convicted murderer?

ALT1:... that the chairman and the imam of Norway's largest mosque have stated that the media's alleged negative portrayal of Islam is due to media "being run by Jews", and that the Holocaust is explainable by Jews being "unruly people in the world"?

Created by User2534 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

The article itself appears to meet the length and age requirements, but in my humble opinion, the focus of the hook is not on the subject of the article. The article should be about the mosque, a building, but half of it is actually about its imams (including their personal lives). Even if that is acceptable, I think the hook should be about the mosque itself. This seems to be the case of focusing "unduly on negative aspects of living individuals" - unduly because the individual is not the subject of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The article isn't actually about the mosque building itself (which has its own name), but about the congregation that owns and run the mosque. User2534 (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
For reference I added some information about the current mosque building, but note that it is not the main subject of the article since the congregation (informally "mosque") existed for 30 years prior to the new mosque building being opened. User2534 (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case, the article is good to go in my opinion. Also, thanks for correcting my "correction" of grammar in ALT1. Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)